Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 120(4)(b), Section 127, Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 144C(13).

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel (242 ITR 582), spanning 2011 to 2026.

242 ITR 582High Court2000#8905 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel authority for?

Compensation paid to hutment dwellers for vacating land is an allowable expenditure in computing capital gains, as it relates to the transfer of the asset. Such payments are considered a cost of acquisition or improvement under Section 48 read with Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Miss Piroja C. Patel · 242 ITR 582 · Section 48 · Section 55 · cost of acquisition · cost of improvement · compensation for hutment dwellers · capital gains computation

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 37

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…arising on the sale of the plot under section 45.” The Bombay High court decisions was followed in number of cases viz CIT Vs Abrar Alvi (2001) 247 ITR 312 (Bom) the SLP of the revenue is dismissed 253 ITR (st) 80, and in case of CIT Vs Piroja C patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bom). The Madras Court in CIT Vs Bradford Trading Co. (P) Ltd 261 ITR 222, was concerned with the allowability of an amount paid to get over difficulties in the sale of the property. The court holds that unless such amount was paid, the transfer of property could not have taken place and hence such payment has an intimate connection to the tran…

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle - 2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Jayapal Sanjay, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1737/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Jayapal Sanjay Income Tax, Non-Corporate 78/132, Dr. Radhakrishnan Circle-2(1), Chennai Salai, Mylapore, Room No. 320, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Chennai-600004. Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar (Pan: Aavps9647J) Bhavan, 121, M G Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Chennai Vide Ita No. 161/2017-18/(A)-2 Dated 27.03.2019 Passed Against The Order Of Acit, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Before Us Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 48

…ated party or not. Similarly, in the case of CIT 19 Jayapal Sanjay AY 2015-16 v. C. V. Sundarajan & Anr. (1983) 150 ITR 80 (Mad), the payments were made for relinquishment of rights in the property sold. Also, in the case of CIT v. Ms. Piroja C. Patel (1999) 242 ITR 582 (Bom), it is a case of compensation paid towards compulsory acquisition of land. Thus, the judicial precedents relied on by the Ld. CIT(A) are distinguishable. 15. Considering the factual matrix, circumstances, explanations and submissions made by both the parties and judicial precedents relied upon, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and upho…

M/S.Abhyankar Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-21(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4462/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 68

…her payment made to a tenant for surrender of his/ her tenancy rights will only enhance the cost of acquisition and at most it can be considered as the cost of improvement as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bombay). 22.3 Considering the above, I agree with the AO that the payment of Rs. 35,68,000/- cannot be considered as revenue in nature as cannot be allowed as deductible expenditure from the P & L A/c. Hence, the ground of appeal no. 3 is dismissed. 22.4 It is further observed that through grounds of appeal no. 3(b) & (c), the appellant has re…

M/S Trimm Exports Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order dated 08

ITA/43/2017HC Karnataka13 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 260Section 48

…med the same without any application of mind. It is also urged that the tax planning is permissible under the provisions of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed 6 on decisions in 'CIT VS. MISS PIROJA C. PATEL', (2000) 242 ITR 582 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. T. SREENIVASA RAO', (1987) 166 ITR 593 (AP), 'UOI VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN', (2003) 261 ITR 222 (MADRAS). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has invited the attention of this court to para 9.11 to 9.27 of the order passed by the Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that the assessee did not shift t…

Late Bhagwandas A Nichlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 4933/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Prem Nichlani On Behalf Of The Ito 17 (1) (2), Late Bhagwandas A. Nichlani, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1302/1303, Dalamal Tower, Mumbai - 400020 211, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaepn2256R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinay Sinha (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sinha (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)

Section 143

…flat. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 (P & H) (Para-3), CIT vs R.R. Sood (1986) 161 ITR 92; 24 taxman 498 (Bom.)(para-3), CIT vs Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) (226 ITR 625 (SC)(para-9) and CIT vs Ms. Piroja C. Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582(Bom.)(Para-3) supports the case of the assessee. In the case of Ms. Nita A. Patel, it was held that the assets which are referred under the capital gains include not only the property which are tangible but also intangible rights, whose physical possession cannot be taken. The word “held” used in explanation (iii) to section 48 does not mean phys…

Acmevac Pumps & Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5155/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48(1)

…owable as deduction. In this connection, he has relied upon the following judgements:- 137 ITR 846 (Mad) CIT v A Venkataraman & Ors. 160 ITR 840 (Del) CIT v Shankuntala Rajeshwar 234 ITR 95 (AP) Naozar Chenoy v CIT 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v Spencers and Co. Ltd 242 ITR 582 (Bom) CIT v Miss Piroja C Patel 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT v Eagle Theatres 298 ITR 268 (Kar) Mrs. June Perrett v ITO 87 TTJ 273 (Mum-Trib) Ketan Bolonjkar v ACIT 35 ITD 285 (Mum-Trib) Chimanlal Paper Co. P Ltd. v ITO 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR submitted that the lower authorities has br…

Shri Dev Suman Saini, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR

…h of them and thus net sale consideration arrived at Rs. 90 lakhs only of which the 50% share i.e. Rs. 45 Lakhs has been correctly shown by the assessee to compute the capital gains. Reliance was placed by the A.R. on case of CIT vs Miss Piroja C Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bom.) and Mrs. June Perrett vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 268 (Kar.) and Naozar Chenoy vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 95 (AP). The AO discussed and distinguished all the three cases in the case of Miss. Piroja C Patel, the assessee had sold land to the BMC which was having hutments over there. In that case giving vacant possession of the land to BMC was a condi…

DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Swan Energy Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6662/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dcit Cen Cir 3 M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known As Swan Mills Ltd, 2Nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Acit Rg 7(2) Formerly Known As Swan Room No. 626, M. K. बिधम/ Mills Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Feltham Road, Churchgate, Vs. House, Ballard Estate, J.N. Mumbai-400020. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Bairagazd प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Abha Kala Chanda सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27/09/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement M/S Swan Energy Ltd..

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. BairagazdFor Respondent: Ms. Abha Kala Chanda

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hennai Trib) Besides above decisions, the issue of cost of improvement has been discussed in the following decisions. I) CIT vs. Eagle Theatres (2012) 205 Taxman 449, (Del) ii) Mrs. June Perret vs. ITO 298, ITR 268 (Karnataka) iii) CIT vs. Ms. Piroja C Patel, 242 ITR 582(Bom) iv) CIT vs. V RamaswamyMudaliar 196 ITR 939(Mad) v) CIT vs. Venkat Raman, 137 ITR 846(Mad) vi) Mathuradas Mangaldas Parekh vs. CIT, 126 ITR 669 (Guj) vii) ACIT vs. GD Thirani, 70 lTD 148 (Calcutta Trib.) In the above decisions, it has been held that the amount paid for vacating the property, payment to evict unauthorised occupants of the pr…

Ghodawat Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT(Hq), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 886/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal & O.P. Agrwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja

Section 4(1)Section 48(1)

…ar 1992-93 – Whether if without removing any encumbrance, sale or transfer could not be effected, amount paid for removing that encumbrance will fall under clause (i) of section 48(1) – Held, yes.” 2. CIT Vs. Eagle Theatres (Del) ITA 1287/2011 (Pages 8-12) 3.242 ITR 582 (Bom) CIT Vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel (pages 13-14 4. 218 ITR 598 (Bom) Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (pages 15- 20) 5.161 ITD 211 (ITAT, Ahd.)Nanubhai Keshavlal Chokshi HUF vs. ITO (pages 21-26) As regards observation of Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not parted with the asset, kind attention of Hon’ble bench is invited to various clauses of Leas…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…complete lease hold rights and subsequently vacating the tenancy by paying an amount of Rs.4.77 crores, which amount should be considered as cost of improvement consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Piroja C. Patel 242 ITR 582. Further the payment for reversionary rights of Rs.1.12 crores was for betterment of existing lease hold rights and all put together assessee has acquired complete rights of the land which it has sold. Therefore, assessee was correct in taking indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.11.66 crores. 26. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissio…

ITA 1287/2011 vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA/1287/2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011

Section 260A

…and incurs an expense to redeem the mortgage and improves his title, which was incomplete and imperfect, the cost incurred is treated as cost of acquisition itself. 8. The Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Miss Piroja C. Patel [2000] 242 ITR 582 (Bom) had examined the question whether payment made to hutment dwellers for vacating land would constitute cost of improvement under section 48(ii). It was held as under: “The short point which arises for consideration in the present matter is whether compensation paid by the assessee and other co-owners to the 2011:DHC:6578-DB…

CIT vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA - 1287 / 2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011

Section 260A